(1) Field of the Invention
This invention relates generally to decking, and more specifically to such decking that is readily removable by an owner in a non-destructive manner so that it can be easily reinstalled.
(2) Description of the Prior Art
The most common type of decking in use today is that which is constructed of wood, secured with metal fasteners, and assembled using individual planks. However, this method of construction has a number of drawbacks, especially when the decking is used for a fixed marine dock. First, it is well known that wood will warp, splinter, rot, mildew, discolor, and crack as it weathers. Second, wood stains easily, due to its porous, cellular structure. It is also difficult to remove oil or grease from a wooden deck. Third, metal fasteners and wooden planks tend to loosen as wooden decks expand, contract, and otherwise move, whether from thermal cycling, wind, water motion, or manpower. Maintenance is required to ensure that all fasteners and planks remain level with the walking surface so as to maintain a safe deck.
Fourth, standard wooden decking is a relatively fixed surface, removable only in a more-or-less destructive fashion. There is often a desire to construct a deck over an area that needs periodic access (such as a rubber membrane flat roof); a standard wooden deck does not accommodate this situation well. Finally, the decking attached to a fixed marine dock, particularly in coastal areas, can be a hazard to the dock itself. During large storms, water and waves rise significantly, generating hydraulic forces that act on the surface area of the wood. These forces act to destroy the dock either by pulling its pilings from the soil or by violently ripping individual planks and/or joists from the structure.
Others have addressed the issues relating to the problems inherent in wood-based decking systems. U.S. Pat. No. 5,070,664 to Groh et al. (1991) discloses a thermoplastic cover that can be used to protect wood planks. However, this would add additional cost and labor to an installation, and it may actually act to trap moisture in coastal environments. U.S. Pat. No. 5,613,339 to Pollock et al. (1997) discloses a deck plank and cover in which a non-wood plank member is secured to a joist system and a non-wood cover is attached. The deck plank and cover of Pollock has drawbacks, notably that it is not a modular system and that its fixed nature will not accommodate normal expansion, contraction, and other movement. U.S. Pat. No. 5,647,184 to Davis et al. (1997) discloses a modular decking plank and decking structure. Davis' decking is polymer-based, but it also requires that each plank be fastened securely to an underlying structure, which does not allow the decking to be truly modular, and it also does not accommodate normal expansion, contraction, and other movement.
Still others have addressed the issue of modular systems for boat docks. U.S. Pat. No. 4,050,257 to Parks et al. (1977) discloses a demountable dock assembly. However, this assembly is fairly complex, requires a unique frame structure, and is not easily usable in tidal coastal environments. U.S. Pat. No. 5,156,493 to Johnson (1992) discloses a dock kit that can be used to construct a modular dock system with removable decking sections. The dock kit of Johnson, however, is fairly complex and contains numerous metal parts. The dock kit would not be advantageous in a tidal coastal marine environment. U.S. Pat. No. 4,645,380 to Hambrick et al. (1987) discloses a docking system consisting of sections that are attached to the previous section by a pivot point, with each section including a set of legs that engage the soil at its far end. Again, a major drawback to the docking system of Hambrick is that it would not be easily usable in tidal coastal environments, especially in situations that require long dock lengths.
All of the boat dock system patents mentioned earlier have common flaws in that they all require unique structures (and are therefore not adaptable to an existing structure) and they all are specific only to boat docks (and cannot be used in residential and/or commercial applications).
Finally, U.S. Pat. No. 5,339,581 to Schlickenmeyer (1994) discloses a modular deck flooring system. Schlickenmeyer's modular deck flooring system addresses the issue of decking modularity. However, his system would be heavy and awkward to remove, especially when wet, since it is constructed of wooden planks and metal fasteners. Repeated removal and installation would cause the fastening locations to loosen, possibly to the point of uselessness. It would also be subject to the other drawbacks, described earlier, associated with wooden decking and metal fasteners.